diff_menus

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish the safe local-read profile, and the description usefully adds that it computes breaking changes, token deltas, and version-bump requirements. It does not describe error behavior or the exact result structure, but it goes meaningfully beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single tight sentence with the comparison front-loaded and the computed outputs listed compactly. 'Reads files only' is short and reinforces the operational boundary without wasting space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only diff tool with no output schema, the description gives the key result categories an agent needs and identifies likely input sources. It is nearly complete, though it could say more about failure cases or the result format.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so before, after, cwd, and release are already documented by the schema. The description adds context about where the menu files typically come from, but it does not add parameter-level syntax or format meaning beyond that baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: compare two menu files. It further specifies the useful outputs (breaking client changes, per-conversation token change, required version bump), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools beyond naming snapshot_menu as a file source.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the mention of files from snapshot_menu save_as or toolmenu snapshot, which tells the agent when such files exist. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no direct comparison to alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.